Foundation and Empire
December 12, 2017 6:35 PM Subscribe
Jim Simons, noted mathematician (winner of the Veblen Prize) and founder of ungodly-successful quant hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, is spending his retirement running an institute focusing on data analyses in support of tough scientific problems. Simons made more than $1.5 billion in 2015, despite being retired from the fund. Some of that money is going to support the private foundation the Flatiron Institute. Its mission is "to advance scientific research through computational methods, including data analysis, modeling and simulation." But what do we think of a world where patronage of science is once again passing into the capricious and unaccountable hands of the uber-wealthy?
Renaissance is not itself uncontroversial; it is alleged to have engaged in tax evasion.
Simons is also a supporter of the controversial Autism Speaks, an example of how the very wealthy can direct medical research, as well.
Renaissance is not itself uncontroversial; it is alleged to have engaged in tax evasion.
Simons is also a supporter of the controversial Autism Speaks, an example of how the very wealthy can direct medical research, as well.
FYI, it should be understood that that is not primarily salary. It's the returns from leaving his money in the fund (which is closed to outside investors).
posted by praemunire at 6:40 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by praemunire at 6:40 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
how bad were the medici's?
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:46 PM on December 12, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:46 PM on December 12, 2017 [3 favorites]
how bad were the medici's?
On the one hand, they were pretty terrible as people and rulers. On the other hand, their patronage supported some of the greatest artists who ever lived (Michelangelo, Leonardo...all of the Turtles, really).
Since it seems like a future of corporate feudalism is inevitable, maybe hyper-wealthy patrons of the arts and sciences is the best we can hope for.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:00 PM on December 12, 2017 [11 favorites]
On the one hand, they were pretty terrible as people and rulers. On the other hand, their patronage supported some of the greatest artists who ever lived (Michelangelo, Leonardo...all of the Turtles, really).
Since it seems like a future of corporate feudalism is inevitable, maybe hyper-wealthy patrons of the arts and sciences is the best we can hope for.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:00 PM on December 12, 2017 [11 favorites]
"all of the Turtles, really" - LOL
posted by twsf at 7:05 PM on December 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by twsf at 7:05 PM on December 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
I won't lie...
If you have gobs of cash and an interesting dataset, I'm your huckleberry.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:05 PM on December 12, 2017 [6 favorites]
If you have gobs of cash and an interesting dataset, I'm your huckleberry.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:05 PM on December 12, 2017 [6 favorites]
My conservative relatives said "Everybody wants clean air and clean rivers! It's just that all of those regulations have gotten so terrible and onerous" a few years ago; I looked askance at the sincerity of the first aformentioned statement because it was clearly at odds with the rest of their ethos. Then last year in the course of pre-11/9 political discussions it was revealed that they're devotees of the "philosophy"—a.k.a. bullshit ahistorical wingnut dogma—that as a consequence of some unspecified beliefs of the Founding Fathers, no scientific research whatsoever should be funded by the government.
So, under this ideal, the only research on whether chemicals being released into the environment are poisoning anyone or causing cancer is done by the companies manufacturing said chemicals. And voilá, the air and water are "clean" because the only research available assures us that the man-made substances ubiquitous in the rivers and sky are perfectly harmless.
posted by XMLicious at 7:07 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
So, under this ideal, the only research on whether chemicals being released into the environment are poisoning anyone or causing cancer is done by the companies manufacturing said chemicals. And voilá, the air and water are "clean" because the only research available assures us that the man-made substances ubiquitous in the rivers and sky are perfectly harmless.
posted by XMLicious at 7:07 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
My medical school is about to be renamed after this guy’s stupid hedge fund. I’m pissed that the name of a hedge fund is going to be on my degree.
posted by ocherdraco at 7:19 PM on December 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by ocherdraco at 7:19 PM on December 12, 2017 [2 favorites]
... what do we think of a world ...
We think it's great. We have no reason to believe that the political process for allocating money to publicly funded science is any less capricious or any more accountable than the uber-wealthy.
posted by Bruce H. at 7:22 PM on December 12, 2017 [3 favorites]
We think it's great. We have no reason to believe that the political process for allocating money to publicly funded science is any less capricious or any more accountable than the uber-wealthy.
posted by Bruce H. at 7:22 PM on December 12, 2017 [3 favorites]
"If you have three Pepsis and drink one, how much more refreshed are you? You, the redhead in the Chicago school system?"posted by Sangermaine at 7:23 PM on December 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
"Pepsi?"
"Partial credit!"
raise taxes
posted by tehgubner at 7:25 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by tehgubner at 7:25 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
winner of the Veblen prize
Ironically named, I'm assuming?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:31 PM on December 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
Ironically named, I'm assuming?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:31 PM on December 12, 2017 [4 favorites]
We have no reason to believe that the political process for allocating money to publicly funded science is any less capricious or any more accountable than the uber-wealthy.
Speak for yourself, friend.
posted by praemunire at 7:41 PM on December 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
Speak for yourself, friend.
posted by praemunire at 7:41 PM on December 12, 2017 [5 favorites]
The people Flatiron has hired are more white and male than publicly funded science in the same fields of study.
posted by medusa at 7:54 PM on December 12, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by medusa at 7:54 PM on December 12, 2017 [6 favorites]
Another example of billionaire science patronage: The Perimeter Institute. And then there's The Reproducibility Project. Both are probably good models to emulate.
posted by storybored at 10:16 PM on December 12, 2017
posted by storybored at 10:16 PM on December 12, 2017
I noticed the exact same thing as medusa - not only were they male and white, but also mostly bearded and glasses-wearing. It was eerie, like clones. Really off-putting, and rather glaringly out-of-place for a modern research institute.
Add to the patronage list - the 3 Allen Institutes for Brain Science, Cell Science and Artificial Intelligence in Seattle. While I'm at least happy for billionaires to be putting money into basic research rather than more evil pursuits, I'm uncomfortable with the ways that the research aims/methods of these places can be influenced by the personal wishes/preferences of the patrons rather than scientific considerations. But it's an interesting model for how to do research, and I'm all for testing out different infrastructures for research communities as a challenge to the calcified hierarchies of typical research universities.
posted by aiglet at 11:15 PM on December 12, 2017
Add to the patronage list - the 3 Allen Institutes for Brain Science, Cell Science and Artificial Intelligence in Seattle. While I'm at least happy for billionaires to be putting money into basic research rather than more evil pursuits, I'm uncomfortable with the ways that the research aims/methods of these places can be influenced by the personal wishes/preferences of the patrons rather than scientific considerations. But it's an interesting model for how to do research, and I'm all for testing out different infrastructures for research communities as a challenge to the calcified hierarchies of typical research universities.
posted by aiglet at 11:15 PM on December 12, 2017
"But what do we think of a world where patronage of science is once again passing into the capricious and unaccountable hands of the uber-wealthy?"
Well, given how much research has the military behind it; I'd prefer the uber-wealthy funding research than a government with long-term plans to more effectively kill people/overthrow governments/etc.
Private foundations don't switch focuses when a new administration gets in office, when a congress with a different ideology gets into place, etc.
These philanthropic research projects are also more desirable than corporate research projects - where the knowledge will be locked up in patents (if are lucky), trade secrets, or buried (see oil companies, tobacco companies, etc).
posted by el io at 11:56 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, given how much research has the military behind it; I'd prefer the uber-wealthy funding research than a government with long-term plans to more effectively kill people/overthrow governments/etc.
Private foundations don't switch focuses when a new administration gets in office, when a congress with a different ideology gets into place, etc.
These philanthropic research projects are also more desirable than corporate research projects - where the knowledge will be locked up in patents (if are lucky), trade secrets, or buried (see oil companies, tobacco companies, etc).
posted by el io at 11:56 PM on December 12, 2017 [1 favorite]
Another is the Kavli Foundation, whose initiatives are often mixed public-private. Their NYC Human Project, for example, sounds fascinating; their ultimate aim to help define public policy. You do wonder what perspectives/priorities will insinuate themselves in their data wrangling - which we know can never be neutral...
posted by progosk at 12:29 AM on December 13, 2017
posted by progosk at 12:29 AM on December 13, 2017
Don't forget the original- Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 12:57 AM on December 13, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 12:57 AM on December 13, 2017 [1 favorite]
If we as a society are unwilling to fund basic research through public funding, then we are back to an age of patrons and robber barons.
NSF, DOE, NASA, NIH, all are hurting. Funding scientific research polls well as a stand-alone question, but is low on the priority list (when people are asked to rank what they think is most important to fund).
In this light private foundations (in my field Simons looms large) can gain significant control over the direction of research and over who gets to do that research. (I am very minorly worried that making this comment could come back to haunt me when I am looking for funding myself... but to say such private money forces are not problematic is simply false. Even the fact that I am mildly concerned about this comment should be worrying!)
It is only a month ago that Simons forced Mercer out of Renaissance.
I recently read The Glass Universe (interesting book about Harvard’s trove of sky photographs and the women who built and analyzed them), and one of the things that struck me is how much time had to be spent placating the rich people funding the project in order to make it a success. It made me think that perhaps the late 20th century model of public funding for research is the anomaly. Of course there are other places (EU, China, India) that may step up as the US falters here.
posted by nat at 3:11 AM on December 13, 2017 [3 favorites]
NSF, DOE, NASA, NIH, all are hurting. Funding scientific research polls well as a stand-alone question, but is low on the priority list (when people are asked to rank what they think is most important to fund).
In this light private foundations (in my field Simons looms large) can gain significant control over the direction of research and over who gets to do that research. (I am very minorly worried that making this comment could come back to haunt me when I am looking for funding myself... but to say such private money forces are not problematic is simply false. Even the fact that I am mildly concerned about this comment should be worrying!)
It is only a month ago that Simons forced Mercer out of Renaissance.
I recently read The Glass Universe (interesting book about Harvard’s trove of sky photographs and the women who built and analyzed them), and one of the things that struck me is how much time had to be spent placating the rich people funding the project in order to make it a success. It made me think that perhaps the late 20th century model of public funding for research is the anomaly. Of course there are other places (EU, China, India) that may step up as the US falters here.
posted by nat at 3:11 AM on December 13, 2017 [3 favorites]
My medical school is about to be renamed after this guy’s stupid hedge fund.
I did my PhD at SBU, and was regularly pretty cranky about how many more resources were available to Simons-supported programs than to my own program.
Also pretty cranky about only living a mile away from Mercer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by pemberkins at 6:10 AM on December 13, 2017
I did my PhD at SBU, and was regularly pretty cranky about how many more resources were available to Simons-supported programs than to my own program.
Also pretty cranky about only living a mile away from Mercer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by pemberkins at 6:10 AM on December 13, 2017
But what do we think of a world where patronage of science is once again passing into the capricious and unaccountable hands of the uber-wealthy?
I think it sucks if it passed that way via illegal trading and tax evasion on the part of Renaissance. It's not like fate or the invisible hand of the market put money in this guy's pocket.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 6:26 AM on December 13, 2017
I think it sucks if it passed that way via illegal trading and tax evasion on the part of Renaissance. It's not like fate or the invisible hand of the market put money in this guy's pocket.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 6:26 AM on December 13, 2017
I mean, I'd rather they spend it on this than friggin cryptocurrency mining.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:08 AM on December 13, 2017
posted by aspersioncast at 8:08 AM on December 13, 2017
Private patronage of science is good .. Haven't you all seen Prometheus ?
posted by k5.user at 8:09 AM on December 13, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by k5.user at 8:09 AM on December 13, 2017 [1 favorite]
There haven't been serious charges of violations of the securities laws against Renaissance, just the tax laws. The structure they used increased returns by reducing taxes paid, of course, but the underlying trades are based on correlating data that others don't see the correlations in.
In a timeline where young earth neo nazis have gained control of the federal government, it's difficult for me to find fault with the idea of spending tax-dodged dollars on scientific research.
Hint: under a Republican administration, lower tax revenues will be used as an excuse for attacks on social welfare programs; under a Democratic administration, that money will not mysteriously come flowing back.
Simons is an exception in this field because he is actually brilliant and directing his efforts towards an area where he has expertise, not just a businessman who happens to be successful, but would you really want Robert Mercer dictating the nation's scientific agenda permanently?
posted by praemunire at 8:17 AM on December 13, 2017 [2 favorites]
In a timeline where young earth neo nazis have gained control of the federal government, it's difficult for me to find fault with the idea of spending tax-dodged dollars on scientific research.
Hint: under a Republican administration, lower tax revenues will be used as an excuse for attacks on social welfare programs; under a Democratic administration, that money will not mysteriously come flowing back.
Simons is an exception in this field because he is actually brilliant and directing his efforts towards an area where he has expertise, not just a businessman who happens to be successful, but would you really want Robert Mercer dictating the nation's scientific agenda permanently?
posted by praemunire at 8:17 AM on December 13, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm delighted by the idea that isn't beholden to the whims of the public.
So...you prefer the whims of one single individual (or a handful)?
Science is not a popularity contest
As opposing to a cajoling-and-flattering-a-single-individual contest? Revisiting the recently-discussed issue of the value of a humanities education, it does generally expose one in some way to the history of great artists having to deal with their patrons, and how awkwardly that often works out.
You seem to have this assumption that a person in a position to command such sums of money does so on the basis of some merit, and especially some form of merit that allows them to be good judges of what makes good science. But, while it may happen to be the case in this instance, there's no real basis for that assumption generally (and even less of one when we start talking about their heirs). And it's worse than just a question of whether they have the brains. You want a private foundation to study the earth's climate, while current studies are being shut down by the local fascists? Well, do you want one founded and run by Robert Kinder?
posted by praemunire at 12:44 AM on December 14, 2017
So...you prefer the whims of one single individual (or a handful)?
Science is not a popularity contest
As opposing to a cajoling-and-flattering-a-single-individual contest? Revisiting the recently-discussed issue of the value of a humanities education, it does generally expose one in some way to the history of great artists having to deal with their patrons, and how awkwardly that often works out.
You seem to have this assumption that a person in a position to command such sums of money does so on the basis of some merit, and especially some form of merit that allows them to be good judges of what makes good science. But, while it may happen to be the case in this instance, there's no real basis for that assumption generally (and even less of one when we start talking about their heirs). And it's worse than just a question of whether they have the brains. You want a private foundation to study the earth's climate, while current studies are being shut down by the local fascists? Well, do you want one founded and run by Robert Kinder?
posted by praemunire at 12:44 AM on December 14, 2017
Jim Simons is remarkably brilliant. It's wonderful that he'll spend so much doing data analysis for good purposes, and incidentally employing clever people who might otherwise wind up working for advertisers, the NSA, etc. In particular, there is no shortage of buffoons doing data analysis these days, but Renaissance never hired those people so presumably they'll stick with the advertisers.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:21 AM on January 5, 2018
posted by jeffburdges at 7:21 AM on January 5, 2018
« Older “I created this game for a certain kind of person.... | Do not need Ultraman Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Jesus H. Balls.
posted by rhizome at 6:36 PM on December 12, 2017